user

Thanks everyone!

There are a few things our organization has been doing for years. They were likely agreed upon by a past Executive Committee (maybe informally). None (or few) of us currently on the Executive Committee were involved in the decisions. They are so old, I have no idea of what the details were when they originally agreed to do these things. For some, I have no idea where they are in the historical meeting minutes, if they're in there at all.

If we want to change some of these things, can we just make a regular main motion? Or do we need to follow the rescind/amend something previously adopted rules (i.e. two-thirds vote or previous notice, etc.)?

If rescind/amend something previously adopted is required, do you really see in practice that people use them to change decisions that were made a long time ago?

If we pass a regular main motion (majority vote and no previous notice) to change a decision that was made long ago, and nobody complains that we didn't use rescind/amend something previously adopted, is that ok?

Got it. Great suggestions guys! Thank you!

Just now, Alicia Percell said:

Sure.  If the rule is that candidates are allowed to give a speech before the vote, and he's a candidate, and it's before the vote, then it seems he is allowed to give a speech.  You didn't mention the rule containing any other "unless there's only one candidate present" type of clause, so I presume there is no such clause and the guy is entitled to a speech.

I agree. Thank you.

Candidates are allowed to give an election speech before the members vote. Let's say the opponent didn't show up (and therefore would not be there to give an election speech). Should the candidate who showed up be allowed to give an election speech?

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think you will find your answer in RONR, 12th ed., 43:29 and 47:11.

I did read through 43:29 before, but that seems to assume the chair has someone else he can turn the position over to.

47:11 makes mention of the chair being vacant, so I assume, in the worst case the chair can unilaterally decide to vacate the chair without turning the position over to someone else. Then I suppose if nobody else wants to be the chair (because they want to participate in debate), the assembly will have to “declare the chair vacant and proceed to elect a new chairman.”

Does that sound correct?

1 minute ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If this is a committee or a small board, there is no problem. If it is a full size assembly, it can suspend the rules to allow the presiding officer to participate in debate.

Ok, got it.

Just wondering, is it possible for the chair to choose to relinquish the chair without a new chair being named?

11 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Is there a vice-president anywhere? If not, what about an outsider that is not a member of the organization as temporary chairman? Do the bylaws say anything about whether the chairmanship is restricted to members of the organization?

Yes, but what if the vice president wants to participate in debate? The bylaws don't say anything about whether the chair is restricted to members of the organization, so I suppose we could find an outside chair.

However, what if it's more of a spur of the moment kind of thing where the chair wants to participate in debate, but nobody else in the assembly wants to take over the chair position?

What if the chair wants to temporarily step down so he can participate in debate & vote on an issue like everyone else, but nobody else wants to be chair because they all also want to participate in debate and vote?

Thanks

Ok. Thanks.

What if the organization is holding elections at our annual meeting and one of the officers uses his report time to subtly campaign for a candidate? It seems a bit unfair since not everyone gets time to present a report.

Is that a violation of the rules? What should one do?

Ok, got it. Thanks.

14 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No there is no such prohibition, but certain combinations are borderline absurd, like holding both president and vice president offices.

However, there is a rule that if multiple offices are voted on a single ballot, such that members will not know the outcome for each office before voting on the next, then a member cannot be elected to more than one office per ballot, and  a member who gets a majority for more than one office must choose one.  Another election is then held for the office(s) that were declined.  The member may then be elected to additional offices on those additional ballots.

None of these restrictions are necessary if separate elections are held for each office, so that members know the results before voting on the next office. [46:31(1)]

Thank you!

Regarding your comment stating some combinations would be borderline absurd, what if there are multiple vice president offices where each vice president is in charge of a specific area. Would you still consider it absurd to hold the president role and one of those several vice president roles? If so, why?

Assuming the bylaws do not prohibit it, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that prohibit a member from running for and being elected to more than one officer position?

Thank you!

Ok, got it. Thanks guys.

What if no motion takes place (because the person assumed we are not voting on this and that it's already set because we did it like this last year)?

Would it be proper to just raise a point of order after they mention it (what if they mention it during a report)?

Thank you

I'm not talking about something in Robert's Rules of Order being violated.

For example, maybe the bylaws states the organization must vote on having a certain number events in a year, however someone else assumes (maybe maliciously) that we are having a specific number of events that year without even having the vote take place.

Do I raise a point of order to mention this?

In RONR (12th Ed) 21:9, it says "If a board or committee meeting is adjourned without any provision having been made for future meetings, the next meeting is held at the call of the chairman."

Additionally, as per RONR, it is my understanding that Executive Committees follows the rules of boards, not committees.

The Constitution states the Executive Committee will hold meetings at least monthly at such hours it may determine. The Executive Committee agreed to hold meetings on the first Sunday of each month.

Since it seems there is a provision made for a future meeting, does that mean the chair (the President) does not have the ability to call a meeting himself?

There is a special meetings section of the Constitution, which says the President can call special meetings of this organization (but it doesn't explicitly say he can call special meetings of the Executive Committee - or does "of this organization" cover the organization as a whole and its Executive Committee?).

Does it say anywhere in RONR that the chair of the Executive Committee gets to call meetings whenever he wants? Can he call a special meeting of the Executive Committee?

Thank you!

Also, the chairs of these committees often bring the decisions/recommendations of their committees to the Executive Committee meeting for ratification.

Hypothetically, if the VP chairing his committee didn't like an official vote and decision that took place in his committee, since the VP is the one presenting those decisions/recommendations to the Executive Committee, is he obligated to go with what his committee voted on? Couldn't he use his voice at the Executive Committee to persuade them to override a decision made in the committee he chairs?

On our Executive Committee, there is a VP. This VP has his own committee that he is the chair of. The committee he is the chair for is a bit less formal and its members are not well versed in parliamentary procedure.

I've noticed the meetings of that committee act more like meetings would in the business world. The VP who runs that committee basically gets final say on things. I've never seen a vote take place. No complaints so far.

Is this ok? Can they decide to do that? Is there a name or official section in RONR that describes this?

I think I understand now. Excellent answers, gentlemen. Thank you.

16 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't understand the question. RONR just is a book on parliamentary procedure. What do you mean by decision making here that's separate from parliamentary procedure?

I mean - where does it usually say we're required to follow parliamentary procedure?

Just because the constitution or bylaws say RONR is the authority on parliamentary procedure, I feel that doesn't explicitly mean we have to follow parliamentary procedure itself.

Our organization's constitution only states that RONR is the authority as to parliamentary procedure. It doesn't mention RONR or parliamentary procedure anywhere else.

I'm just unclear where it says we're required to use parliamentary procedure for decision making. Does it usually explicitly state that in the constitution/bylaws? Or does it say it somewhere else?

I'm just thinking legally, shouldn't it explicitly say somewhere that you must use RONR/parliamentary procedure for official decision making? Or are all organizations legally required to use parliamentary procedure already, and they just need to define who the authority on parliamentary procedure is?

If you work at a company that holds meetings, those meetings clearly don't follow parliamentary procedure. What is the formal name for that kind of meeting? And by comparison, by what name should I use to refer to meetings that follow parliamentary procedure?

Thanks

Our organization has a Constitution. We cannot modify that Constitution since it is provided by our parent organization and there is a clause in there that says only they can modify it.

The Constitution does not have a clause that allows for proxy voting. We want to allow for proxy voting.

As per RONR 11th Ed page 428, "Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless the laws of the state in which the society is incorporated require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it"

We don't have any document called the bylaws right now. Can we create bylaws to allow for proxy voting? If yes, what is the procedure? Majority vote?

Thanks